Injunctive Relief | Uncontested Summary Judgment | CV2021-001880
The court record available here is limited. It shows Val Vista Lakes Community Association brought a civil action against Safwat S. Aziz and Glenna L. Kincheloe, that the complaint sought injunctive relief, and that Judge Randall H. Warner granted the association an uncontested motion for summary judgment after finding the motion supplied a legal and factual basis for the requested relief.
Last updated July 2, 2026. Case: Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Safwat S. Aziz, et al., Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001880.
Scope note: This page covers Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Safwat S. Aziz, et al. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2021-001880) as a public Arizona superior-court HOA case guide. It is built from the court’s own filed minute entries, including the April 21, 2021 arbitration minute entry and the August 3, 2021 uncontested summary-judgment ruling; the complete set of collected minute entries is available in the source-document index below. Currency caveat: the collected entries end with the court granting the association’s uncontested summary-judgment motion and giving the parties 30 days to lodge a final judgment or obtain an extension; this draft does not include a later final judgment. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This page is educational and is not legal advice.
The takeaway
The available minute-entry record is narrow. The court treated the case as one seeking injunctive relief, held it was not subject to compulsory arbitration, and later granted Val Vista Lakes Community Association an uncontested motion for summary judgment under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b). The ruling does not describe the underlying covenant, assessment, or property dispute, so this page should be read as a procedural case note rather than a substantive interpretation of HOA law.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The (Plaintiff)
Homeowners association that filed the civil action and obtained an uncontested summary-judgment ruling. - Gregory A. Stein (Counsel)
Counsel listed for Val Vista Lakes Community Association in the minute entries.
Respondent Side
- Safwat S. Aziz (Defendant)
Named defendant. The minute entries list this defendant as self-represented. - Glenna L. Kincheloe (Defendant)
Named defendant. The minute entries list this defendant as self-represented.
Neutral Parties
- Randall H. Warner (Judge)
Maricopa County Superior Court judge who issued the default-procedure minute entry, the arbitration minute entry, and the uncontested summary-judgment ruling. - Susan White (Commissioner)
Commissioner identified in the April 12, 2021 minute entry as handling Rule 55(b) default-judgment proceedings.
What happened
Val Vista Lakes Community Association filed a Maricopa County Superior Court action against Safwat S. Aziz and Glenna L. Kincheloe. The minute entries identify the association as the plaintiff and Gregory A. Stein as its counsel; the defendants are listed as self-represented. The entries do not describe the underlying property facts or the covenant provisions at issue.
On April 12, 2021, Judge Randall H. Warner addressed the association’s e-filed application or motion for default. The court took no action on that filing in the judge’s division and advised the parties that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) default-judgment proceedings. The minute entry also explained that the documents needed to support default judgment had to be e-filed and that a paper default-judgment packet had to be submitted to the assigned commissioner before a commissioner would act.
On April 21, 2021, the court addressed conflicting certificates about compulsory arbitration. Because the complaint sought injunctive relief, the court ruled that the case was not subject to arbitration under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). That entry is the only collected minute entry that identifies the type of relief sought.
The dispositive ruling came on August 3, 2021. The association had filed a June 17, 2021 motion for summary judgment, no response had been filed, and the court said it would summarily grant the motion as uncontested under Rule 7.1(b). Judge Warner added that he had reviewed the motion and that it provided a legal and factual basis for the requested relief.
The court ordered the summary-judgment motion granted. It also ordered that the matter would be dismissed without prejudice in 30 days unless a form of final judgment was lodged with an appropriate notice of lodging or the deadline was otherwise extended by the court. The collected minute entries for this draft stop there.
Video overview of the ruling
An AI-generated video overview of Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Safwat S. Aziz, et al. (CV2021-001880 (Maricopa County Superior Court)). HOA obtained uncontested summary judgment in an injunctive-relief case, with final judgment still to be lodged. This plain-language summary was generated from the court’s filings; the court’s own ruling controls.
Listen: audio deep dive on the ruling
An AI-generated audio deep dive walking through the court’s reasoning and disposition in Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Safwat S. Aziz, et al.. Generated from the case filings; verify against the linked ruling below.
Procedural timeline
Complete uploaded source-document index
This index is generated from every public-facing source file currently present in assets/court_case_downloads/val-vista-lakes-community-association-v-aziz/raw/: 3 PDFs. Files are ordered by the date/sequence embedded in the normalized filename; AI-generated review materials are labeled separately and should not be treated as court filings.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Minute Entry
Type: Court order/minute entry
Court or agency order; this is usually the document that tells readers what changed next.
Ruling
Type: Court order/minute entry
Ruling granting Val Vista Lakes Community Association’s uncontested motion for summary judgment and warning that the matter would be dismissed without prejudice unless a final judgment was lodged or the deadline extended.
FAQ
What did the association win in this case?
The collected minute entries show that the court granted Val Vista Lakes Community Association’s uncontested motion for summary judgment. The ruling says the motion provided a legal and factual basis for the requested relief, but it does not describe the underlying covenant facts or the exact judgment terms.
Why was the case not sent to compulsory arbitration?
The April 21, 2021 minute entry says the parties filed conflicting arbitration certificates. The court ruled the case was not subject to arbitration under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) because the complaint sought injunctive relief.
Did the court analyze any HOA statute or CC&R provision?
No such analysis appears in the collected minute entries. The dispositive ruling grants an uncontested summary-judgment motion under Rule 7.1(b), but it does not quote or interpret a statute, declaration, or CC&R provision.
Why is this page marked standard rather than must-read?
The record confirms an HOA plaintiff and an injunctive-relief case, but the dispositive minute entry is short and procedural. It does not provide substantive analysis of Title 10, Title 33, or a recorded declaration, so it does not meet the must-read standard used for broader HOA-law guidance.
What happened with default judgment?
The April 12, 2021 minute entry did not enter default judgment. It said Judge Warner’s division would take no action on the default filing and explained that commissioners handle Rule 55(b) default-judgment proceedings once the required filings and paper packet are submitted.
Is this ruling precedent for other Arizona HOA disputes?
No. Superior-court rulings bind only the parties and are not precedent. This entry is mainly useful as a procedural example of an uncontested HOA summary-judgment ruling where the complaint sought injunctive relief.
Case Dossier
This generated dossier mirrors the structured data surfaced on the OAH/ADRE case pages. It is added from the curated court-case record and the custom page source package, while the hand-authored analysis below remains intact.
Case Summary
| Case ID / citation | CV2021-001880 (Maricopa County Superior Court) |
|---|---|
| Court / tribunal | Superior Court |
| Decision / key date | August 3, 2021 |
| Judge / panel | Hon. Randall H. Warner |
| Parties | Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The (Plaintiff, homeowners association) v. Safwat S. Aziz and Glenna L. Kincheloe (Defendants) |
| Topics | procedurecovenantscc-and-rs |
| Outcome / holding | The superior court granted Val Vista Lakes Community Association’s uncontested motion for summary judgment under Rule 7.1(b) after finding the motion supplied a legal and factual basis for the requested relief, and it set a 30-day deadline to lodge a final judgment or obtain an extension before dismissal without prejudice. |
| Primary public source | View source opinion/order |
Parties, Court, and Research Coverage
| Uploaded source package | 3 PDFs |
|---|---|
| Step-by-step docket roadmap | 4 roadmap entries |
| Video overview | Val Vista Lakes Community Association, The v. Safwat S. Aziz, et al. |
| Study / briefing material | 1 section |
| FAQ / homeowner questions | 6 questions |
| Curated download aliases | 1 download link |
Key Issues & Findings
Val Vista Lakes Community Association sued Safwat S. Aziz and Glenna L. Kincheloe in Maricopa County Superior Court. The available minute entries show the complaint sought injunctive relief, which made the case ineligible for compulsory arbitration under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). After the association moved for summary judgment and no response was filed, Judge Randall H. Warner granted the motion as uncontested under Rule 7.1(b), finding that the motion provided a legal and factual basis for the requested relief. The collected entries end with the court warning that the matter would be dismissed without prejudice in 30 days unless a final judgment was lodged or the deadline was extended.
The court first resolved a procedural issue: because the complaint sought injunctive relief, the case was not subject to compulsory arbitration under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). That minute entry does not describe the underlying injunction request, but it confirms the case involved equitable relief rather than only a money claim.
The dispositive ruling turned on the association’s June 17, 2021 motion for summary judgment. No response was filed, so the court treated the motion as uncontested and granted it summarily under Rule 7.1(b). Judge Warner also stated that he reviewed the motion and found it provided a legal and factual basis for the requested relief. The minute entry contains no substantive interpretation of an HOA statute or governing document, and the court left final-judgment lodging as the next step.
This is a narrow procedural HOA case note. It shows that an association case seeking injunctive relief will not be routed to compulsory arbitration, and it illustrates the effect of failing to respond to a summary-judgment motion: the court may summarily grant the motion as uncontested if it finds a legal and factual basis for the requested relief.
The case is not a strong source for homeowner or board guidance on the merits because the collected ruling does not identify the covenant dispute or interpret any HOA statute or CC&R provision. As a superior-court ruling, it binds only the parties and is not precedent.